So, I see the game of the year awards here.  Why does the third-person shooter category need to be evaluated separately from the FPS title in determining game of the year?  Why shouldn't the likes of Gears of War 3 go up against Modern Warfare 3 for game of the year involving cross-hair aiming shooters?

Can  someone explain why they need to be evaluated separately?  I can understand that, when talking nuances, there is some differences, but as far as determining a choice for game of the year?

It's actually "the nicest ass we look at for 8 hours" award but we don't say that out loud..

Because I can play 3rd persons but not 1st persons...

They have a platformer category. They just call it Best Wii Game.

This, except the other way around for me (with exceptions)

I can't... Except for the genre difference.

You get motion sickness from playing games in 3rd person...? O.o

They are different experiences for me.
FPS best played with keyboard and mouse, but I can cope with a twin stick controller.
3PS best played with twin stick controller, can't get used to playing them with KBM.

I prefer FPS. 3PS there's always someone walking in my view. If the game allows it I will choose the smallest, skinniest character as not to obstruct my view too much. 3PS tends to screw up my aiming, especially when shooting next to a wall or trying to shoot through a gap. The camera also tends to spaz out or get behind a bush now and then.

Dark souls was great but at least 25% of my deaths were camera related. It remains to be seen though if it would work better in first person view with all those tiny ledges.

Why are there so few games where you can switch between the 2 at will? (not just for looking around temporarily) Racing games have tendered to both views since 3D racing became popular.